Testing and operating conditions — country comparison

What must be satisfied before driving on a public road?

Compare test drives and driverless deployment. Each practical answer links to a specific provision or official guidance.

ViewFirst country / regimeSecond country / regime Show differences only

The filter compares the wording of answers, including notes, ignoring case and whitespace. Different wording alone does not establish a difference in law. Sources and review scope remain available.

Slovakia / Germany · 7 questions

The comparison distinguishes technical approval, permission to drive and authorisation to provide a transport service. The French operational branch concerns automated passenger transport; the British branch covers Great Britain, meaning England, Wales and Scotland. The scope of individual legal routes varies between countries.

Testing and operating conditions — targeted source review
Question	SlovakiaTesting route + specific delivery vehicles	GermanyAutonomous vehicle in an approved area	FranceTesting + automated passenger transport system	Great BritainTesting with a driver + driverless pilot + APS
Who authorises test drives?	The Ministry of Transport, as type-approval authority, grants permission under § 49. For unapproved automated vehicles, the manufacturer or its representative applies; since 1 September 2026 this falls under paragraph 1(c). Act 106/2018, § 49(1)(c), (2)(c); § 135(2) ↗	The Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (KBA) issues a testing permit on application by the vehicle keeper (Halter). The vehicle must be registered and used exclusively for testing; AFGBV § 16 specifies further conditions. StVG § 1i ods. 1–2 ↗ AFGBV § 16 ↗	Permission is issued by the minister responsible for transport following an opinion from the interior minister and, where appropriate, other relevant authorities. It specifies roads, functions and routes; it lasts no more than two years and can be renewed once. Ordonnance 2016-1057, Articles 1–2 ↗ Décret 2018-211, Articles 2–5 ↗	Testing with a safety driver generally requires no specific testing permit if it complies with existing law. The vehicle must be roadworthy and insured, and the driver ready to take control. Non-compliance with particular technical or operational rules may require an exemption. DfT Trialling Code — Introduction; Legal requirements ↗ DfT Pilot guidance — Vehicle special order ↗
What enables driverless operation?	§ 49 authorises testing. § 52 provides a specific route for automated delivery vehicles. No general licence for ordinary driverless services was identified in the provisions checked. Parliamentary bill 1329 remains a proposal. This finding alone does not determine the permissibility of every particular project. Act 106/2018, § 49(8)(a), § 52 ↗ Parliamentary bill 1329 — legislative status ↗	§ 1e requires an eligible technical approval, an approved operating area and vehicle registration. Type approval under (EU) 2022/1426 is a technical alternative; a German Betriebserlaubnis is therefore not always an additional cumulative permit. The area is approved by the competent authority under federal or Land law; for relevant federal roads, the Act identifies a particular infrastructure management company. StVG § 1e(1), particularly points 2–4 ↗	For an automated passenger transport system, the service organiser takes the commissioning decision. This is based on safety dossiers and favourable expert opinions, which may contain conditions. Before launch, the decision is notified to the prefect, the designated authority and road managers. Code des transports R3152-11 I–IV ↗	A pilot without a safety driver combines vehicle approval and registration, a VSO for necessary exemptions and listing as an automated vehicle under the 2018 Act. A passenger service additionally requires an APS permit. The VCA issues the VSO on behalf of the Secretary of State; APS has a separate statutory basis. APS alone does not establish that the vehicle may operate without a driver. DfT Pilot guidance — Scope; VSO and vehicle listing ↗ Automated Vehicles Act 2024, s. 82 ↗ Automated Vehicles Act 2024, s. 83 ↗
Who bears operational duties?	The applicant ensures the technical, staffing and organisational prerequisites. The permit holder is responsible for fulfilling operational duties and testing conditions. Act 106/2018, § 49(3) and (8) ↗	The Halter ensures safety, maintenance and performance of technical supervision tasks. Manufacturers have separate duties concerning risks, cybersecurity, documentation and training. StVG § 1f ods. 1 a 3 ↗	The organiser is responsible for preparing safety dossiers and the launch decision. The operator establishes an operational safety management system. During testing, the permit holder ensures remedial action for events threatening safety. Code des transports R3152-11 II–III ↗ Décret 2018-211, Article 10 ↗	The trialling organisation ensures test safety. Pilot guidance separately considers the operator; the APS holder fulfils service conditions. One or several persons may perform these roles. The relevant national authority has power to grant APS permits. SI 2026/439 governs the Secretary of State’s competence only within its material and territorial scope. DfT Trialling Code — Approach ↗ DfT Pilot guidance — Scope; Table 4 ↗ Automated Vehicles Act 2024, s. 82(1), (4)–(5) ↗ SI 2026/439, reg. 1(3) ↗
What is the human role?	§ 49 envisages a driver to whom the permit holder provides the permit. The precise supervision arrangements for a particular driverless test require consideration of road traffic rules and permit conditions. The role of remote supervision is not fully verified in this overview. Act 106/2018, § 49(6) and (8)(c) ↗	During ordinary autonomous operation, the technical supervisor evaluates and authorises specified alternative manoeuvres, deactivates the system and addresses the safe state. The Act does not require continuous monitoring of driving. Testing follows a different regime: permanent supervision by a driver or an on-site Technische Aufsicht. StVG § 1f ods. 2 ↗ StVG § 1e(2), point 1 ↗ StVG § 1i(1), point 4 ↗	During testing, the driver must be able to deactivate the system; a driver outside the vehicle must be able to take control to ensure safety. For remote intervention in a transport system, R3152-3 requires an authorised, trained and medically fit person. Ordonnance 2016-1057, Article 1 ↗ Décret 2018-211, Article 12 ↗ Code des transports R3152-3 ↗	Testing with a safety driver and a pilot without one are separate routes. A pilot system should perform the entire driving task without human driving or safety-critical monitoring; the guidance permits some remote assistance. DfT Trialling Code — Approach ↗ DfT Pilot guidance — Monitoring and control; Table 1 ↗
What safety evidence is needed?	Testing safety is demonstrated through information about off-road testing or trials abroad. Act 106/2018, § 49(3)–(5) ↗	Safe performance of driving and risk management must be demonstrated; the area must have appropriate suitability, infrastructure and staffing. For testing, AFGBV requires a development concept, a description of changes, supervision and the ability to deactivate and intervene on site. StVG § 1e ods. 2 ↗ StVG § 1f ods. 3 ↗ AFGBV §§ 8–9; § 16 ods. 3 ↗	The pre-launch dossier covers the safety management system, modifications, test results and an updated safety demonstration. Experimental passenger transport or operation without an on-board driver starts with a passenger-free testing phase, whose results are reported to the minister. Code des transports R3152-8 ↗ Code des transports R3152-11 ↗ Décret 2018-211, Article 15 ↗	For testing, the guidance expects an appropriate safety case. Pilot guidance requires a documented safety case, a safety management system and evidence of operator capability. These are guidance and assessment requirements; legally binding restrictions for a specific journey must be read in the VSO and APS permit. DfT Trialling Code — Safety cases ↗ DfT Pilot guidance — Tables 1–4; VSO ↗
What is known about damage, insurance and offences?	The holder ensures liability insurance where required by separate legislation. The full allocation of compensation and liability for offences requires a separate review. Act 106/2018, § 49(8)(d) ↗	The starting point for compensation arising from vehicle operation is Halter liability under § 7 StVG. The technical supervisor’s operational duties must not be confused with automatically assuming all liability for an accident. Exceptions, other persons’ liability, insurance and recourse have not been fully examined. StVG § 7 ods. 1–3 ↗ StVG § 1f ↗	The testing regime allocates liability for offences between the driver and permit holder depending on the system’s state; the holder’s criminal liability for specified consequences requires proven fault. Separate Article L123-2 addresses the manufacturer or its representative during automated driving under statutory conditions. These rules must not be reduced to “the manufacturer is liable for everything”. Compensation, insurance and transport-system-specific rules require separate assessment. Ordonnance 2016-1057, Articles 2-1 and 2-2 ↗ Code de la route L123-2 ↗	Insurance remains a statutory condition of testing; compliance with guidance does not guarantee exemption from liability. Breaches of APS conditions or serious traffic and safety problems may lead to variation, suspension or withdrawal of the permit. Full compensation arrangements for vehicles listed under the 2018 Act and criminal liability are not assessed in this overview. DfT Trialling Code — Introduction; Insurance; RTA 1988 s. 143 ↗ SI 2026/439, regs. 5–8 ↗
What conditions and open issues remain?	A testing permit lasts no more than one year; it may restrict area, route and time and require data collection. Parliamentary bill 1329 remains before a committee. Act 106/2018, § 49(6) ↗ Parliamentary bill 1329 — committee stage ↗	An approved operating area remains a separate condition. An AFGBV testing permit generally lasts up to four years, with extension possible if conditions are met. The practical application of older AFGBV §§ 8–9 references to Betriebserlaubnis alongside the new European alternative in § 1e StVG must be resolved, and authorisation for the specific transport service checked. StVG § 1e(1), points 2–3 ↗ AFGBV §§ 7–9; § 16 ods. 2 ↗	The practical operational branch covers passenger transport. A new or substantially modified system requires a decision under R3152-11. If expert opinion conditions are not met within the specified period, the service cannot operate. Freight transport and full sector-specific authorisations were not re-verified in this pilot. Code des transports R3152-11 I a IV ↗	The APS basis in sections 82–83 has been in force since 15 May 2026. SI 2026/439 provides a maximum five-year term; it applies to public service vehicle services throughout Great Britain and other APS in England. The entire Automated Vehicles Act 2024 cannot be described as in force. Northern Ireland and separate rules for other services in Wales and Scotland are outside this overview. SI 2026/437, reg. 2 ↗ SI 2026/439, regs. 1(3) a 3 ↗

Question

SlovakiaTesting route + specific delivery vehicles

GermanyAutonomous vehicle in an approved area

Who authorises test drives?

The Ministry of Transport, as type-approval authority, grants permission under § 49. For unapproved automated vehicles, the manufacturer or its representative applies; since 1 September 2026 this falls under paragraph 1(c).

Act 106/2018, § 49(1)(c), (2)(c); § 135(2) ↗

The Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (KBA) issues a testing permit on application by the vehicle keeper (Halter). The vehicle must be registered and used exclusively for testing; AFGBV § 16 specifies further conditions.

What enables driverless operation?

§ 49 authorises testing. § 52 provides a specific route for automated delivery vehicles. No general licence for ordinary driverless services was identified in the provisions checked.

Parliamentary bill 1329 remains a proposal. This finding alone does not determine the permissibility of every particular project.

§ 1e requires an eligible technical approval, an approved operating area and vehicle registration. Type approval under (EU) 2022/1426 is a technical alternative; a German Betriebserlaubnis is therefore not always an additional cumulative permit.

The area is approved by the competent authority under federal or Land law; for relevant federal roads, the Act identifies a particular infrastructure management company.

StVG § 1e(1), particularly points 2–4 ↗

Who bears operational duties?

The applicant ensures the technical, staffing and organisational prerequisites. The permit holder is responsible for fulfilling operational duties and testing conditions.

Act 106/2018, § 49(3) and (8) ↗

The Halter ensures safety, maintenance and performance of technical supervision tasks. Manufacturers have separate duties concerning risks, cybersecurity, documentation and training.

StVG § 1f ods. 1 a 3 ↗

What is the human role?

§ 49 envisages a driver to whom the permit holder provides the permit. The precise supervision arrangements for a particular driverless test require consideration of road traffic rules and permit conditions.

The role of remote supervision is not fully verified in this overview.

Act 106/2018, § 49(6) and (8)(c) ↗

During ordinary autonomous operation, the technical supervisor evaluates and authorises specified alternative manoeuvres, deactivates the system and addresses the safe state. The Act does not require continuous monitoring of driving. Testing follows a different regime: permanent supervision by a driver or an on-site Technische Aufsicht.

What safety evidence is needed?

Testing safety is demonstrated through information about off-road testing or trials abroad.

Act 106/2018, § 49(3)–(5) ↗

Safe performance of driving and risk management must be demonstrated; the area must have appropriate suitability, infrastructure and staffing. For testing, AFGBV requires a development concept, a description of changes, supervision and the ability to deactivate and intervene on site.

What is known about damage, insurance and offences?

The holder ensures liability insurance where required by separate legislation.

The full allocation of compensation and liability for offences requires a separate review.

Act 106/2018, § 49(8)(d) ↗

The starting point for compensation arising from vehicle operation is Halter liability under § 7 StVG. The technical supervisor’s operational duties must not be confused with automatically assuming all liability for an accident.

Exceptions, other persons’ liability, insurance and recourse have not been fully examined.

What conditions and open issues remain?

A testing permit lasts no more than one year; it may restrict area, route and time and require data collection. Parliamentary bill 1329 remains before a committee.

An approved operating area remains a separate condition. An AFGBV testing permit generally lasts up to four years, with extension possible if conditions are met.

The practical application of older AFGBV §§ 8–9 references to Betriebserlaubnis alongside the new European alternative in § 1e StVG must be resolved, and authorisation for the specific transport service checked.

Review scope and open issues

Slovakia

Open country profile →

The reference to § 49 has been updated following the amendment effective from 1 September 2026. The finding that a general route is absent is limited to the provisions checked and the status of parliamentary bill 1329. The guide does not cover the entire implementing legislation, all road traffic rules or individual permits.

Sources and versions used in the comparison

Act No. 106/2018 Coll. on vehicle operation
Version applicable 1–30 September 2026; review of § 49, § 52 and designation of the authority in § 135(2). The Act also has a further version from 1 October 2026.
National Council of the Slovak Republic — parliamentary bill 1329
Legislative status checked on 7 September 2026: committee stage; committee deadlines of 11 and 14 September 2026.

Related ROAT records: ROAT-2026-0156 · ROAT-2026-0159 · ROAT-2026-0306

Germany

Open country profile →

Compared with the original snapshot, the alternative of European type approval in the current § 1e(1), point 2, is clarified. Permanent supervision during testing remains distinct from ordinary autonomous operation. The relationship between the current StVG and AFGBV procedural requirements must be resolved for an individual application; this comparison does not treat it as settled.

Sources and versions used in the comparison

StVG § 1i — Erprobung
Consolidated text retrieved on 7 September 2026; KBA permit and supervision during testing.
AFGBV — approval, operation and testing
§§ 7–9, 14 and 16 checked in the consolidated text on 7 September 2026. The links in §§ 8–9 to a domestic Betriebserlaubnis must be read alongside the newer § 1e StVG.
StVG § 1e — Betrieb von Kraftfahrzeugen mit autonomer Fahrfunktion
Consolidated text retrieved on 7 September 2026. Paragraph 1, point 2 expressly includes type approval under (EU) 2022/1426 as an alternative.
StVG § 1f — duties of the keeper, technical supervisor and manufacturer
Full provision retrieved from the official portal on 7 September 2026.
StVG § 7 — Haftung des Halters
Consolidated § 7 retrieved on 7 September 2026; the basis of Halter liability, not a full audit of exceptions and recourse.

Related ROAT records: ROAT-2026-0329 · ROAT-2026-0330 · ROAT-2026-0170

Identical wording does not mean legal equivalence. Operational duties, compensation and liability for offences are separate matters; the comparison states only the verified scope.

Question / dimension	Germany – current lawCurrent-law model · at its stated date	France – current lawCurrent-law model · at its stated date	Croatia – current lawCurrent-law model · at its stated date	Great Britain – 2026 transitional current lawCurrent-law model · at its stated date	China – current transitional regimeCurrent-law model · at its stated date	China – 2026 Road Traffic Safety Law draftPROSPECTIVE — NOT CURRENT LAW	Slovakia – current law (31 Aug 2026)Current-law model · at its stated date	Slovakia – CPT 1329 prospective modelPROSPECTIVE — NOT CURRENT LAW
Regulatory object	Autonomous vehicle + approved defined operating area + keeper + technical supervision	Automated road transport system: vehicle + technical system + route/zone + service organisation	Fully automated vehicle + owner + operating area + transport service + remote intervention arrangements	APS permit holder and pilot-operator architecture as the 2026 transitional route; authorised self-driving vehicle / responsible-entity architecture enacted but not yet commenced	Conditionally admitted L3 vehicle + designated user entity + specified roads/speeds + road-access pilot	Autonomous vehicle/ADS + manufacturer/importer + road-use accountability layer	EU-approved vehicle + national test-operation / narrower operational exceptions	Licensed FAV operator + approved operation + control centre + supervision operator + ODD
Technical approval baseline	EU/UNECE technical baseline plus German autonomous-vehicle operating permit under StVG/AFGBV	EU type approval / relevant vehicle technical approval	EU ADS type approval	UK vehicle approval/self-driving authorisation architecture under AV Act implementation programme	Conditional product admission; GB 44721-2026 adopted but effective from 1 July 2027	Road-traffic-rule conformity test + technical/product admission; GB 44721-2026 technical pillar	EU/UNECE type-approval framework can provide high technical maturity	EU/UNECE technical approval remains baseline
Additional deployment / road-use gate	Vehicle operating permit + authority approval of defined operating area + registration before autonomous road use	Prior system safety demonstration + qualified independent opinions + formal mise-en-service decision	Dedicated road-traffic rules plus mandatory real-world service validation before passenger-service deployment	Automated Passenger Service permit under Part 5 of the AV Act 2024 (in force 15 May 2026) for eligible passenger services; other deployments run as pilots under vehicle special orders; Part 1 authorisation not yet commenced at snapshot	Product admission is followed by geographically/functionally limited road-access pilot rather than unrestricted deployment	Registered AV may activate ADS only within design operating conditions; national road-use rules sit above technical conformity	Predominantly § 49 test-operation permit; the only non-test deployment gate is the operational permit for automated delivery vehicles under § 52 of Act 106/2018; no general dedicated commercial FAV deployment gate	Operator licence + specific operation approval would create a genuine second gate
ODD / operating-area legalisation	ODD is translated into a geographically defined and authority-approved 'festgelegter Betriebsbereich'	Safety case is tied to intended route or zone and service configuration	Operating area / territory forms part of deployment validation and service conditions	Deployment area fixed through APS permit and pilot conditions; authorised domain under Part 1 of the AV Act not yet in force	Specified road segments, speed limits and operating conditions function as legally bounded ODD/geofence	Manufacturer/importer must ensure ADS cannot activate outside design operating conditions	ODD reflected in permit/test conditions; for automated delivery vehicles the operational permit fixes territory, route and time (§ 52(6)); not yet a general autonomous-operation authorisation object	ODD and defined roads/territory become part of operational documentation / approval
Competent authority / decision maker	KBA / competent road authority depending on decision layer	Service organiser / competent transport and road authorities within statutory framework	Transport/road authorities; licensing authority under national transport framework	Secretary of State / DVSA and relevant local transport authority for APS consent	MIIT and participating local authorities under pilot framework	Public-security / product / transport authorities under State Council allocation	Ministry of Transport / road and police authorities depending on permit	Ministry of Transport with police/other authority inputs
Primary accountable organisational actor	Halter (vehicle keeper), with manufacturer duties and Technische Aufsicht functions separately allocated	Automated transport-system/service operator architecture rather than vehicle owner alone	Vehicle owner is a central road-traffic accountability actor; service operator duties exist at transport layer	APS permit holder / pilot operator; ASDE and NUiC-operator architecture in Part 1 of the AV Act not yet in force	Designated user entity + manufacturer within monitored pilot architecture	Manufacturer/importer becomes direct central accountability actor for ADS-active traffic violations	Permit holder / owner / driver-type roles; operator holding an operational permit for automated delivery vehicles (§ 52); no general licensed FAV operator architecture in force	Licensed FAV operator becomes organisational centre of responsibility
Remote human role	Technische Aufsicht – may deactivate and release specified manoeuvres; not ordinary continuous remote driving	Qualified remote intervention personnel integrated into system operation	Remote intervention role recognised; boundaries and concurrency remain implementation questions	No German-style technical supervisor as universal core role; remote functions depend on operating model	No mature national standalone technical-supervisor/remote-operator role architecture yet	Remote human role remains underdeveloped in the draft	No general commercial FAV technical-supervision/control-centre role in force; supervising driver (dohliadajúci vodič) with remote takeover for automated delivery vehicles (Act 8/2009 § 2(2)(w), § 5(6))	Supervision operator + control centre; current draft boundary with remote driving needs correction
DDT / fallback allocation	ADS performs DDT; system must comply with road rules and achieve minimum-risk condition where necessary	ADS performs DDT; remote intervention supports defined situations without collapsing into ordinary remote driving	ADS performs driverless operation; remote intervention supports defined operational/safety functions	Authorised ADS performs self-driving task; user-in-charge duties are separated where relevant	L3 ADS performs DDT within approved conditions; human fallback remains relevant to L3 design	ADS continuously performs full DDT within design operating conditions; L2 assistance is expressly distinguished	Current framework remains structurally driver/test oriented; dedicated driverless DDT allocation is incomplete	ADS should remain DDT performer; current wording risks transferring DDT remotely to supervisor in some clauses
Traffic-offence allocation	Dedicated AV behavioural architecture; legal duties are distributed among ADS framework, keeper and supervisor rather than simply retained by an onboard driver	Dedicated criminal-responsibility adaptations exist; detailed allocation depends on operating mode and legal actor	Owner bears dedicated responsibility for traffic offences of fully automated vehicle in driverless operation	No general rule in force at snapshot: Part 1 reallocation of legal responsibility away from the user not yet commenced; pilot and permit conditions require reporting of infractions	Current pilot arrangements do not yet equal the proposed national manufacturer-centric offence rule	Manufacturer/importer 'accepts handling' for violation while ADS active and bears burden of proof if claiming it was unrelated to ADS	No complete general rule for traffic offences committed by driverless FAV	Still requires explicit rule for offences committed by FAV while ADS is active
Civil liability / insurance	General StVG keeper-liability / insurance architecture remains central; not wholly replaced by AV-specific civil liability	Compulsory insurance/general civil-liability rules supplemented by dedicated automated-driving responsibility provisions; civil layer less comprehensive than deployment layer	Traffic-offence allocation is clear; broader AV-specific civil-liability architecture is less complete	Dedicated: Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 s. 2 makes the insurer liable for accidents caused by a listed automated vehicle driving itself; AV Act 2024 insurance and liability provisions pending	Existing compulsory insurance/general rules apply; national AV-specific insurance provisions are proposed, not yet enacted	Compulsory motor-vehicle liability insurance required; commercial insurance encouraged; detailed regime delegated	General motor insurance/civil liability; no mature FAV-specific allocation	Insurance/organisational requirements improve, but full civil/product/service allocation remains to be clarified
Data / logging	Statutory event/data duties; AFGBV data-storage requirements	System/event recording and safety-management evidence required	Strong telemetry/event-data access and video-surveillance duties	Reporting under APS permit conditions and pilot conditions (collisions, infractions); information duties of Part 1 of the AV Act not yet in force	Pilot monitoring and safety evidence required	Strong accident evidence/data duties and manufacturer data-provision obligations	Test-operation documentation and technical rules; supervision log and permit-conditioned operational data for automated delivery vehicles (Act 8/2009 § 6(7); Act 106/2018 § 52(6)–(7)); no general FAV logging architecture equivalent to CPT 1329	Dedicated recording system proposed
Post-market / in-use oversight	KBA/authority market surveillance and permit supervision	In-use system safety management and authority oversight tied to service operation	Service/deployment oversight, incident management and licence conditions	Oversight through APS permit monitoring and pilot conditions; in-use regulation under Part 1 planned for full implementation	Government monitoring and conditional product/road-access controls	National road-safety risk assessment can support suspension/prohibition, recall, repair, replacement/refund/compensation measures	Primarily permit/test supervision rather than mature in-use driverless market oversight	Operator/licence supervision and operational duties create stronger in-use layer
Material change / software update	AFGBV § 4(5) expressly requires KBA approval before post-permit changes to an autonomous vehicle are used; § 6 allows withdrawal/suspension of the vehicle operating permit where approval conditions cease to be met.	Code des transports R3151-1 defines a substantial modification as one that changes the safety assessment; R3152-18 requires notification and, for a substantially modified system, suspension of operation.	Partial change-control only: a new special-conditions certificate is required within 15 days if certificate data change; general testing applies to converted/modified vehicle hardware under Road Safety Act Art 276.	APS Regulations 2026 treat a material change in circumstances as a ground for permit variation, suspension or withdrawal; AV Act ss 5, 8 and 9 authorisation powers not yet commenced	Pilot/product approval is version- and condition-sensitive; exact general change-control rule is still evolving	Unauthorised ADS modification prohibited and sanctioned; post-market risk layer is explicit	Handled through technical approval/test permit changes; no general deployment change-control regime	Draft requires clearer material-change / software-version triggers
Retesting / revalidation	Explicit lifecycle control: KBA approval for vehicle changes; suspension/withdrawal pending clarification under § 6; operating-area approval can be suspended/withdrawn under § 10 when safety assumptions or infrastructure conditions cease to hold.	Explicit re-commissioning: after a substantial modification the organiser suspends operation and a new mise-en-service decision is taken under R3152-10 to R3152-12; R3152-11 applies to new or substantially modified systems.	No equally explicit rule located that a material ADS/ODD/software/service change automatically re-triggers the Art 13b–13d real-world service-validation procedure. Serious incidents can trigger temporary prohibition of a FAV type under Art 290a.	Permit-level: variation, suspension or withdrawal of an APS permit or pilot on breach or incident; general authorisation lifecycle under Part 1 remains implementation-stage through 2027	Road-access pilots and reassessment provide staged evidence before expansion	Implementing rules still required; change/revalidation mechanics not fully specified	Retesting tied mainly to test-operation context	Local validation/testing is structurally present but should be proportionate and recognise existing type-approval/foreign evidence
Commercial service pathway	Possible within approved operating area and applicable transport/service law	Yes. Passenger automated-road-transport-system pathway extended to automated road freight by Décret 2024-1063, effective 28 Nov 2024.	Yes, through transport licensing after service-level real-world validation	APS permit enables staged commercial passenger deployment in 2026	Limited pilot deployment; not unrestricted nationwide commercial L3 operation	Supports ordinary national road operation once enacted and implementing rules exist	No general pathway from EU type approval to ordinary commercial driverless operation; goods delivery by automated delivery vehicles is the only permitted service use (Act 8/2009 § 55b; Act 106/2018 § 52)	Potential general commercial pathway if enacted and separated from test-only logic
Dominant deployment model	Operating-area + technical-supervision model	System/service safety-assurance model	Owner-centred deployment-validation model	Staged-permit model (APS permits and pilots ahead of Part 1 authorisation)	Manufacturer/user-entity conditional deployment model	Manufacturer-centred road-use and enforcement model	Testing-permit / technical-leading model	Licensed-operator + control-centre deployment model
Legal status	In force	In force	In force	Partly in force: Part 5 (APS permits) from 15 May 2026; Part 1 authorisation and Part 4 marketing restrictions commence in 2027	In force as pilot / conditional admission architecture	Draft / public consultation	In force	Draft / parliamentary print 1329
Primary-source anchor	StVG §§ 1d–1g; AFGBV §§ 4, 7–11, 13–14	Ordonnance 2021-443; Décret 2021-873; Code des transports R3151/R3152; Décret 2024-1063 / R3251–R3253	NN 145/2024 Arts 281a–281f; NN 154/2024 Arts 13b–13d / Art 51a framework	Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and Commencement No. 1–3 Regulations (SI 2025/1339, 2026/437, 2026/731); SI 2026/439; AEVA 2018 s. 2; DfT implementation programme	MIIT conditional L3 approvals of 15 Dec 2025; GB 44721-2026	Road Traffic Safety Law revision draft Arts 95–103	Act 106/2018 §§ 49, 52; Act 8/2009 §§ 2, 5, 6, 55b; Decree 131/2018; Act 131/2026 effective 1 Sep 2026 only prospectively at snapshot	CPT 1329 §§ 49a–49f and related amendments
Evidence and sources	German Road Traffic Act (StVG) §§ 1d–1g – Motor vehicles with autonomous driving function in defined operating areas (Straßenverkehrsgesetz §§ 1d–1g)Ordinance on the approval and operation of motor vehicles with autonomous driving function in defined operating areas, AFGBV (Verordnung zur Genehmigung und zum Betrieb von Kraftfahrzeugen mit autonomer Fahrfunktion in festgelegten Betriebsbereichen)German Road Traffic Act (StVG) § 1a – Motor vehicles with an automated driving function (Straßenverkehrsgesetz § 1a)Technical Report of the Working Group “Research Needs in Teleoperation” (BASt F 166b)	Ordonnance No. 2021-443 of 14 April 2021 on criminal liability and conditions of use for vehicles with delegated driving (Ordonnance n° 2021-443)Decree No. 2021-873 of 29 June 2021 implementing Ordonnance No. 2021-443 (Décret n° 2021-873)Decree No. 2024-1063 of 25 November 2024 on automated road freight transport (Décret n° 2024-1063 relatif au transport routier automatisé de marchandises)	Act amending the Road Traffic Safety Act, NN 145/2024 (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o sigurnosti prometa na cestama)Ordinance amending the Ordinance on special conditions for vehicles used in public road transport and own-account transport, NN 154/2024 (Pravilnik o izmjenama i dopunama Pravilnika o posebnim uvjetima za vozila kojima se obavlja javni cestovni prijevoz i prijevoz za vlastite potrebe)Act amending the Road Transport Act, NN 77/2026 (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o prijevozu u cestovnom prometu)	Automated Vehicles Act 2024 Automated vehicles: statement of safety principles consultation The Automated Vehicles (Permits for Automated Passenger Services) Regulations 2026 Automated Vehicles Act implementation programme	GB 44721-2026 – Safety Requirements for Autonomous Driving Systems MIIT conditional approval of the first two Level 3 automated-driving vehicle models (工业和信息化部许可两款L3级自动驾驶车型产品)	Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China – revision draft (中华人民共和国道路交通安全法（修订草案）)GB 44721-2026 – Safety Requirements for Autonomous Driving Systems MIIT conditional approval of the first two Level 3 automated-driving vehicle models (工业和信息化部许可两款L3级自动驾驶车型产品)	Act No. 8/2009 Coll. on Road Traffic (Zákon č. 8/2009 Z. z. o cestnej premávke)Act No. 106/2018 Coll. on the Operation of Vehicles in Road Traffic (Zákon č. 106/2018 Z. z.)Act No. 131/2026 Coll. amending the Slovak Road Traffic Act and related legislation (Zákon č. 131/2026 Z. z.)Government Bill amending laws in connection with expanding the framework for introducing and using automated vehicles in the Slovak Republic (Parliamentary Print 1329)	Government Bill amending laws in connection with expanding the framework for introducing and using automated vehicles in the Slovak Republic (Parliamentary Print 1329)Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1426 on type-approval of automated driving systems Interpretation of EU Regulation 2022/1426 on the Type Approval of Automated Driving Systems: Addendum for Safety Management System and Remote Management Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China – revision draft (中华人民共和国道路交通安全法（修订草案）)German Road Traffic Act (StVG) §§ 1d–1g – Motor vehicles with autonomous driving function in defined operating areas (Straßenverkehrsgesetz §§ 1d–1g)Ordinance on the approval and operation of motor vehicles with autonomous driving function in defined operating areas, AFGBV (Verordnung zur Genehmigung und zum Betrieb von Kraftfahrzeugen mit autonomer Fahrfunktion in festgelegten Betriebsbereichen)

What must be satisfied before driving on a public road?

Review scope and open issues

Slovakia

Germany

France

Great Britain